Feminism Friday – “Feminists Look for Stuff to Get Mad About”

originally posted on Shakesville by Melissa McEwan | Monday, February 25, 2008 as Feminism 101: “Feminists Look for Stuff to Get Mad About”

---

[This is a new series in which I'll be addressing misconceptions or answering questions about feminism and/or feminists. There are certainly old posts that would naturally fall into a Feminism 101 series, like Rape is Not a Compliment, Animal House, or On "Bitch" and Other Misogynist Language (reposted here on FF101 last week ~tigtog), but, increasingly, it's apparent we need a collection of posts on critical theories and prejudices, to which we can point here and elsewhere to succinctly deal with recurring themes, so here we go. If you have a topic you'd like to see covered in this series, email me.

Note that I won't tread on Jeff's territory in defining key terms with his "Explainer" series: MRAs, Gender Feminists and Equity Feminists, and Nice Guys^TM. If you need something defined, email him.]

* * *

“Feminists Look for Stuff to Get Mad About”

Of all the condescending, dismissive, and factually incorrect accusations used by concern trolls (or hostile trolls) to attempt to silence, shame, or in some other way discourage feminists from addressing sexism in all its manifestations, perhaps none is quite so stupid as the charge that feminists are “looking” for things about which to be offended—as if feminism is a product that will go out of production if there aren’t enough buyers and sales are waning because sexism is, like, so over, dude.

This notion is ridiculous for a couple of reasons. For a start, misogyny is so pervasive that no one has to look for it. That said reality is even remotely in doubt is laughable, given that any YouTube comments section on any video featuring a woman will be rife with misogynist swill.

Feminism Friday – Feminism 101: “Sexism is a Matter of Opinion”

By Melissa McEwan (Crossposted from Shakesville, where it is part of Liss’s ongoing Feminism 101 series)

---

There’s a very common misperception that sexism is subjective—that any given incident identified by one person as sexist could be identified by another as not sexist, and either both of them are right, because the whole thing is just a matter of opinion anyway, or the latter is right, because if it’s not equally obvious to everyone, it can’t be sexist. It’s this conventional wisdom about the subjectivity of sexism that underlies the ubiquitous “I don’t see it” rejoinder, particularly recurrent in discussions of expressed sexism against women, on which this post will be focused.*

Sexism is, in fact, not subjective. What’s subjective are individual reactions to sexism, but sexism itself can be objectively determined. (I’ll come back to that in a moment.) Individual reactions to sexism will, naturally, be as vast and varied as the individuals who react—but because there are men, or women, who aren’t offended by something, or don’t find it sexist, doesn’t mean it isn’t. One can always find someone who refuses to be offended by something: That Michelle Malkin wrote In Defense of Internment doesn’t American government-built concentration camps any less objectively offensive or wrong.

So: Toss out the idea that there must be unanimous consent, or even majority agreement, that something is sexist for it to be determined as such. In fact, toss out the idea that sexism is determined by subjective opinion altogether.

Feminism Friday: two posts from Jill at Feministe on rape myths vs statistics

Both of these were written in response to an op-ed in the LA Times by Heather MacDonald.

Post 1: It’s Only A Myth If You Believe That Those Sluts Were Asking For It

This op/ed is one of the most ridiculous I’ve read in a long, long time (and that’s pretty impressive). Heather MacDonald argues that high rates of sexual assault on campus don’t exist because women don’t always define their experiences as rape; she then goes on to say that women who say they were raped are lying sluts who exaggerate the truth and were probably asking for it.

Jill’s evisceration of this op-ed is a joy to read, and then she gets on to the larger feminist points:

At first glance, it seems strange that MacDonald would simultaneously attack what she thinks is a hyped campus rape crisis and sex education on campuses. But it’s quite deliberate, and very telling. Anti-rape activism and sex-positive sexual health education are two sides to the same coin: They both challenge the dominant narrative that women’s bodies aren’t our own; they insist that sex is about consent and enjoyment, not violence and harm; and they attack a power structure that sees women as victims and men as predators. Anti-rape activists and sex-positive educators insist that men are not animals. Instead, men are rational human beings fully capable of listening to their partners and understanding that sex isn’t about pushing someone to do something they don’t want to; plenty of men are able to grasp the idea that sex should be entered into joyfully and enthusiastically by both partners, and that an absence of “no” isn’t enough — “yes” should be the baseline requirement.

Obviously, moving from the traditional “consent” standard of non-dissent to a new standard of affirmative assent still won’t end rape altogether:

Feminism Friday Open Thread: Misogyny in Political Activism

There’s been some fantastic blogging about this recently regarding the candidacy of Hillary Clinton for the Presidency of the USA. Shakesville especially has been clarifying people’s thoughts this week:

• Melissa: Damned if you do…
• Melissa: Stealth Vote Salon (a roundup of other’s responses to the post above)
• Kate: I Am Not Ashamed

A lot of division is being manufactured over whether white male Democrats, for instance, are going to vote for their gender or their race in the primaries. Nobody in the media is really looking at how close the two front-running candidates are on most issues, and how impressive both of them are in different ways so that, as Kate says, Democrats in the primaries are essentially voting on which kitten is the cutest, and would be happy to vote for either when the actual presidential vote comes around.

Of course, misogyny is a phenomenon that is seen worldwide wherever women candidates run for any public office. We certainly saw instances of misogyny here in Australia in our last Federal election, directed mostly against Julia Gillard, who is now our Deputy Prime Minister, and plenty of the same accusations that women intending to vote for a woman were voting purely out of sisterly solidarity instead of on the issues (implication: can’t trust chicks with the vote!).

I’d love to see a collection of posts from bloggers all over the world about instances of misogynistic attitudes used against women running for office. Please discuss the issue here and add links to memorable posts.

Feminism Friday: Safety vs. Patriarchal Overprotection

Reader Justin wrote and asked me for advice on an ethical balance problem, and with his permission I quote his email:

I have a question which has been bothering me for some time, and which may/may not be worth addressing on the site. In any case, its something I don’t feel precisely comfortable asking my close friends, but it does bother me. Not that you have any obligation to spend time assuaging my liberal guilt, but worth a try.
. .
I’m a male college student from the Midwest and I’ve been self-identifying as feminist (or feminist ally) for quite awhile. Through activism and academia, I’m pretty familiar and comfortable with feminist thought. About a year ago, my best friend–who attends another Midwestern college–was raped at knifepoint by two strangers who attacked her as she walked to her dorm one night. As I’ve attempted to help her work through the fallout of that experience, I’ve grown very protective (read paranoid) of my female friends. Particularly, I feel like I should refuse to let them walk home by themselves at night, and do my best to convince them to let me accompany them after parties, etc., which usually isn’t a problem.

Still, sometimes I feel a bit patriarchal and condescending, and I recognize that discouraging women from walking at night is a sort of variation on the whole “asking for it” theme, shifting the blame [on to] the victim [and away from] the victimizer. My question is, how do I find an ethical balance between protecting my friends from often underestimated dangers, and avoiding stereotype reinforcing paternalism. Obviously, in a sense my personal stake in this issue is minor compared to the actual threat of sexual violence, but I would still like to know how best to handle these situations. . .

Thanks for listening to my ramblings; any thoughts you have would be appreciated, though certainly not demanded. . .

Now, as I mailed back to Justin, I had two immediate responses come to mind.

1. although your protectiveness is noble, as I’m sure you’re aware most sexual assaults are date/acquaintance/partner rape, and you can’t be there for that. So the utility of your protectiveness is, through no fault of your own, limited.

2. the greater work to be done is challenging sexist attitudes in men around you when women aren’t there. It’s a long term effort, with no short term fanfares of triumph, but as more and more profeminist men undertake to challenge misogyny it’s more likely to make a difference in the end.

Now, while I was waiting for Friday to roll around, Kate Harding posted her terrific essay that I quoted in the FAQ: What Can I Do For Feminism?, which addressed my #2 above.

As to #1, I certainly wouldn’t want to minimise the fear, pain and distress of stranger rape, and I don’t have the personal experience to back it up, but I’m sure from what I’ve read of others’ experiences that the fear, pain and distress can only be multiplied when the rapist is someone known and trusted, and there’s sadly little the Justins of our world can do about untrustworthy deceitful men.

EXCEPT: as said above, don’t reinforce their casual misogyny about crazy bitches who are asking for it.

You might not know which of the men around you are untrustworthy deceitful misogynists, but guaranteed that some of them are, and if blokes who would never bully or harm a woman play along with the crazy-bitch jokes just for a laugh, some of those men laughing are getting their misogynistic violence fantasies reinforced by what they perceive as acceptance from other men.

Justin, thanks so much for writing.